August 2011 – LIVEdigitally

Musing on Apple Building a Television

Posted on August 26, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman

I don’t think I’ve ever waffled on a topic as much as this one. Back in ’07 I wrote two articles on Apple “owning” the living room and building TVs. Ever since, I’ve gone full tilt in both directions. Until about a week ago, I agreed firmly with Erik Schwartz on the topic, as he wrote today:

I am quite sure that there has been a team at Apple working on TV projects for literally the last 20 years. I am also quite confident that they are not going to release a TV in the near future. (read more)

He continued to espouse on the four issues he saw: Margins, Replacement Cycles, Logistics, and Integration. And on all four counts, I’ve agreed with him.

But now I have second thoughts. My friend and coworker Adam Burg has long been a believer of “iTelevision” as has Dijit (and TiVo and many others) investor Stewart Alsop (who was quoted today in VentureBeat’s article on the topic). For them, and many others, the rumors were way too much smoke for a lack of fire. And on that point, I tend to agree that the rumors are a little stronger than what the Apple PR team will let flow when there’s no substance whatsoever.

So first, the case against iTelevision

Generally speaking, the two strongest “con” arguments are:

1. The margins in TVs suck, and since you can’t get away from the reality check of what it takes/costs to make a TV (hint: glass), the margins will suck for Apple too, and Apple doesn’t play in the “sucky margin” business. This would force Apple to make a notably more expensive TV than anyone else, and even Apple can’t somehow get people to spend $1500 on the same sized screen they can have from Samsung for $1000.

We make THIS many!

2. The TV replacement cycle sucks, as the average family won’t replace a TV for ~7-8 years, and that’s not a world Apple typically plays in either. Unlike phones (1 year) and PCs (2-3 years), consumers won’t be up for buying a new set very frequently, and the concept of having an “outdated” television will cause more infuriated people than Apple typically likes to create. Note: this is a concern of the entire “Smart TV” industry (well, it’s probably not, but it really should be), and you can mark my words that backlash is going to hit these manufacturers in the next 6-12 months.

I’ve had a 3rd argument personally, which is Apple can’t make an iTelevision for $1000 whilst selling a “$99 upgrade” Apple TV product that brings the same functionality/services to any other manufacturer’s device. Now the counter to that would be the Apple TV is there to enable wider content consumption, etc, but it’s still generally considered a “no-no” to cannibalize your own market.

We'll pre-announce while our existing product is on the market. What could possibly go wrong?

So now, why I’ve come around, and the case for iTelevision. I’ll start by refuting the arguments above.

1. Apple makes awesome margins on everything. If Apple’s building a TV, they’ve figured out their own amazing supply chain methodology to do it profitably. Very profitably. So if everyone else is selling a 50″ LCD for $999, they will too, only instead of making less per unit than the price of a really good bowl of soup, Apple will rake in the cash as they go. They are the only tablet manufacturer selling at a real profit (HP not withstanding. What, too soon?), and I see no reason why, if they enter this space, they won’t do the same thing.

2. Apple will change or solve the replacement cycle issue. Before iPhones, the US market was radically less likely to buy a new phone every year. I have a much harder time accepting that Apple can successfully convince people to lug a 50″ screen home (and correspondingly, out of their home) once a year (or every other year). This is way too painful a process, even for a fanboy.

I'm on a truck!

This implies either Apple can make a TV that is easy to move/replace or the components which would require upgrade can be guaranteed upgradeable for a few years. Both are actually feasible, though the former requires some more impressive technology (flexible or roll-up displays, for example, could do it). The latter is probably more likely – after all, even the original iPhone can still run a lot of the apps that are on the market. What would matter the most here is that each generation of iTelevision is guaranteed to mostly compatible with the same content offerings as future generations (in other words, regardless of apps and whatnot, if Johnny Homeowner’s TV can only play 1/3 of the movies as his neighbor, he’s pissed – if he can play mostly the same stuff, just no Angry Birds, he’s less so).

3. They could coexist, if the other product is iTelevision and it isn’t the same thing as an Apple TV. So if the rumored iTelevision isn’t about “Apple TV inside a flatscreen” and is instead something new/different, this could be more feasible. I’ve heard and debated scenarios ranging from built-in DVRs to TV tuners to CableCard and more. Here’s all I know: whatever they do will be fully end-to-end thought out. You won’t buy an Apple TV then have to go to the mall to pick up a CableCard. You will do everything in an Apple store or online (or from your phone), and it’ll just work.

If I have to weight the pros vs cons these days, I have to say, the pros seem to have it. Will it come out in 2011 or 2012? Hard to say. Will they dominate the TV market the way they dominate tablets? Unquestionably NO, but they’ll probably profit more off the sales of TVs than anyone else, more akin to what they do in phones. Will they shock us with their offering when it comes out? Probably, though probably in the same “why isn’t everybody just doing it that way” style they do with everything else. Will they create a massive gaping wound in the side of the TV industry, and opportunity for a brand new type of ecosystem to emerge? Absolutely.

Now, back to the waffling.

Thanks, Steve!

Posted on August 25, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman

Apple is one of those companies that tends to polarize people. Some hate them for “closed” systems. Others love them for beautiful products. Some call them evil and bullying. Others say they open markets. I’m not one to debate, so I’ll just cut to the chase by saying Apple, in the past decade, has contributed more to consumer technology than most other companies combined. And it’s fairly hard to argue that the Apple of today is entirely the company Steve built.

Steve Jobs’ resignation hits hard, but the only thing that comes as a surprise is the seeming suddenness of it (Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually resigned. That was extremely sudden). Here’s a list of some of the things, love em or hate em, that we should all be thankful of Jobs/Apple for (and yes, I’m sure some dude in some lab somewhere invented all these things about 300 years ago, but if it weren’t for Apple, we all wouldn’t know about them):

Internet-based music distribution: from iTunes to Pandora to Spotify to Turntable, had it not been for Apple creating the iPod+iTunes ecosystem, it’s unlikely the music industry would’ve had sufficient motivation to enable “digital” as fast as they did. The MP3 market would’ve grown much slower, resulting in less buy-in from the industry, resulting in a lack of streaming and on-demand services. Would we have something like it today? Probably. Would it all be priced the way it is today? Doubtful. It took the muscle of the iPod’s dominance to enable Apple to negotiate the entire music industry into the $0.99 pricing schema we have today. It’s likely that companies such as Amazon and Sony would’ve ended up much strong in this space, but we’d probably be paying more for the same content, and I’d wager services like Pandora would never have gotten off the ground.
“Real” smartphones: Unquestionably smartphones predate the iPhone. Blackberries had some “smartness” and earlier generation Windows Mobile devices actually provided quite a bit of functionality, not to mention the granddaddy of them all, the Palm/Treo lines. But let’s face it, the iPhone really changed everything. Capacitive touchscreens (remember the stylus? nope, me neither), app stores (more on that to come), and more, all thanks to the iPhone’s success. I think Nokia and RIM would still be considered the leaders in the mobile space if Apple had never shipped an iPhone, and team Android should be exceptionally grateful for its existence.
Gestures: Pinch + Zoom? Swipe? Multi-finger scroll? One could argue this is just a subset of the smartphone, but it’s not, as gesture support has improved the computing experience overall. Prior to the “two finger scroll” feature on MacBooks, the only thing even close was the variety of PC manufacturers who enabled the right-side scroll region on their inputs. Once again, an area where numerous companies could’ve beaten Apple to the punch, but simply didn’t.
The Internet: Just kidding.
Nice Macbook, er, Vaio.

Bringing Sexy Back: From the moment Steve rejoined Apple through to today, the company’s products have set the standard for technology aesthetics. Whether it’s the sleek industrial design, the minimalistic approach, the amazing attention to detail, or the use of aluminium, it’s as if Apple showed up in a Porsche while everyone around them were driving Volvos (boxy, but good). As a result, there’s been an almost frenetic rush to make distinctive, beautiful technology. And some of it’s even been pretty good!
Changing Retail: When Apple first announced they’d open their own retail stores, they were literally laughed at. There’s now over 300 of them, and they are unbelievably successful. They are considered the best retail customer experience overall. They are wildly profitable. Consumers enjoy going there even when they don’t buy things. In fact, my only surprise here is the lack of copycats – nobody’s even close to creating a similar experience at such a grand level. Well, maybe in China…
The App Economy: Yes, my PalmPilot had installable apps, and so did my Windows Mobile phone. But it took Apple to create a nearly $4-BILLION app economy and marketplace. My hunch here is without Apple revolutionizing the concept (by, again, creating a full end-to-end experience regarding discovery, installation, and most importantly, payment, for apps), we’d have nothing even as advanced as the Android market is today, which I still consider to be floundering in the dust relatively (simple tip to radically improve said experience: sort all apps AND reviews by device – will fix 80% of fragmentation problems in one fell swoop).
The iPad: Remember when tablets really sucked? Guess what, they still do. But what doesn’t suck is the iPad. Other than speculation and conjecture, the reality check is the only successful “tablet-like product” on the market is the iPad, all others pale in comparison. I could write a dozen or so blog posts on what everybody else is doing wrong, but the thing that matters here is all the things Apple did right. They made something that perfectly fits into a few dozen million peoples’ lives. Flash? Nobody cares. USB? Nobody cares. “Closed system”? Nobody cares. The iPad, as if by magic, navigated through the waters of touch-input devices to create the admittedly-not-perfect product, but so far beyond “good enough” that it’s changed computing as we know it.

I’m sure I’m missing a bunch of things that the company did that I can’t even recall at this moment, but these were the ones that hit me as most important. How did they do it? The comfort in saying “no, we can’t ship that yet, it’s just not ready.” The comfort in saying “it’s okay if we aren’t providing every feature known to man, just so long as our features are great.” The comfort in saying “we don’t have to be perfectly compatible with all other technologies that have come before us, if we make a strong ecosystem ourselves.” The comfort in saying “we believe this is what people really want, and we’re going to give it to them.”

These are statements that no other technology manufacturer or provider make, so far as I’ve seen in my career (with brief exceptions, such as Sling, Flip, and a handful of others).

When Steve Jobs rejoined Apple in the late 90s, it’s well known that he rapidly ripped apart products, cut staff, and trimmed down the entire operation to get radically focused. Since then, beyond all the technology and products, what Steve’s done the most is built the very DNA of the Apple that we know today. The real contribution Steve made, in my opinion, was creating a culture of building to perfection, and understanding what that means as a core essence.

As I commented on TechCrunch, “Much like when a pitcher walks from the mound, the entire tech industry should stand and give a round of applause for one who has contributed so much.”

Time to call it a day

When a pitcher takes that walk, sometimes it’s because they’re pulled. But every now and then, that pitcher gave his all, kicked some amazing ass, and it’s just time for him to take a rest. But along the way he carried or maybe even made the game. And his spirit carries the team even further. And for those of us watching on the sidelines, we rise with applause, out of thanks and respect.

You rocked our world!

And then the game carries on.

Introducing the Future of TV newsletter and Twitter list

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman

Now that I’m “back in the game” so to speak, I’ve spent the past few months creating a few tools to help me find industry relevant content. A few of my peers have asked to take a glance “at my tools”, which I found shocking at first, but soon realized what they were talking about. As such, here they are:

1 – the Future of TV newsletter

Inspired by my colleague Jason Hirschhorn‘s excellent “MediaReDEFined” newsletter, I’ve set up a newsletter that’s just me curating news in the “Future of TV” space. Topics include Social TV, Connected TV, SmartTV, Second Screen, Four Screens, OTT (Over-the-Top), Cord Cutting and just about anything else that comes along that way. It’s a fully manually curated production, so you should expect anywhere from 2-20 or so article per day (substantially less on the weekend).

Sample excerpt:

The Difference Between Connected TV, Social TV and Expanded TV (TribecaFilm) | Talk NYC

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 01:39 PM PDT

With television moving onto different platforms, it seems like nowadays we can watch TV everywhere. What is the ultimate future for television in a world that expects more from their

The Cable Customer’s Bill of Rights

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 01:39 PM PDT

Over the past few days, we’ve received more than 1,000 horror stories about bad cable experiences: tales of bad techs, terrible service, and troubling billing practices. We used those to build a cable customer’s bill of rights.

Hope you find this useful, click here to subscribe. And don’t forget to tell all your friends!

2 – the Future of TV Twitter list

The best way to really *use* Twitter (other than pure self-promotion, narcissism, and stalking purposes that is), is to organize people into “lists” that tend to tweet about a given topic. Even then, it’s an easy bet that said list will still contain it’s fair share of lunch-related discussion and reality TV show spoilers, but it’s still better than the pure noise of your regular Twitter stream. I’ve culled a list of people who tend to be more likely than not to tweet about something having to do with the future of TV. It’s not perfect, and it’s probably still missing some folks. Here’s a sample:

Note that this is *not* a list of all companies or people in the Future of TV industry, and Twitter accounts from companies such as Miso and GetGlue are conspicuously absent – but this is because they aren’t really tweeting about TV, and are tweeting about TV shows themselves (not to pick on either company – and if there are Twitter accounts from them, or others, that are more germaine to this topic, I’d be happy to include them here).

I’ve also embedded this list into the sidebar of the blog, so you can follow along from here if that’s easier. Or click here to see the whole list in action.

Hope either of these are useful tools to anyone in this very fun, very fast-moving industry. Happy to take any feedback or suggestions as well!

12 by 2012: SXSW panels on the Future of TV

Posted on August 19, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman

I’ve been in “Future of TV” startups directly and indirectly since 1999, yet haven’t once made it to SXSW Interactive (I was even supposed to speak this year, but my third child arrived way too close to the conference for me to make it unfortunately). For 2012 I’ve proposed a talk entitled “Why the Future of TV has Four Screens” and hopefully the conference organizers will find it interesting to include. This is obviously a space I have a lot of passion about, so I decided to go peek around at what other interesting and related presentations and panels are in the “PanelPicker”.

Here’s the ones I’ve found, in no particular order:

Title: Why the Future of TV has Four Screens

Speaker: Jeremy Toeman, Dijit Media

Studies have shown that over 70% of TV watching happens with a second screen in hand, whether it’s a phone, tablet or laptop, people are no longer just watching TV. They are tweeting, checking-in, Facebooking, searching the web for information and more. The rise of this social TV trend is causing companies across the entire TV industry, including content providers, TV manufacturers and startups in the convergence space to take notice. They are now trying to blend content, social and additional screen interaction in a variety of ways, from social networking on your TV screen to controlling your TV with your phone. However this is causing more confusion, not more entertainment. In this panel, we will explore: How are consumers using the second (or third or fourth) screens? Why are the additional screens important? How do those additional screens affect the way consumers interact with TV? And how are the additional screens are changing the entertainment landscape for the next decade?

Title: Why Digital May Forever Alter TV As We Know It

Speakers: Michael Aragon (Sony Network Entertainment), Jason Spivak (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)

With 24/7 internet access on our mobile phones, Blu-ray players, HDTVs, laptops and gaming consoles, the ability to easily stream movies, TV shows, and other digital content has forever changed the way we consume film and video. People older than 50 are more likely to tune into TV broadcasts, while people younger than 25 are actively watching online video. The revolution in business models and digital distribution that disrupted the music industry has turned the TV and film industry on its head. As a result we are seeing a paradigm shift where producers, TV execs, gaming publishers, and print authors are paving new roads to build business models around on-demand video that is accessible across multiple devices. This presentation will discuss where the present round of convergence is leading, what the opportunity is for monetizing content beyond ad-based revenue, and what forms of new interactive media we can expect to see on network-enabled devices

Title: The Future of TV: Bigger, Brighter and Greener

Speaker: Amit Jain, Prysm

The way we interact with our television is changing. Submissive TV watching is a thing of the past. What does the demand for larger, interactive video displays mean for the future of in-home entertainment? The days of passive television viewing are gone. Today’s audiences are savvier and more engaged in the technology around them and expect more from their television screen than simple 2-D moving pictures. Television screens continue to get bigger and deliver a more immersive viewing experience accompanied by high-def picture quality and 3-D capabilities. As these technologies continue to improve, in-home entertainment is getting more and more life-like. Unfortunately, the current television market cannot keep up with the consumer demand for a bigger, better viewing experience at home. While 55” plasma screens seem like the next best thing, they offer a logistical nightmare. From the transportation between store to home, to the installation and additional infrastructure needed to support them, to the mass quantities of power they consume, it seems the larger the screen the bigger the headache. In this session, Prysm CEO, Amit Jain, will explore the future of television and discuss the changes in technology needed to make this a reality.

Title: Brave New World of Smart TV: Myths & Misperception

Speaker: Mario Queiroz, Google TV

The age of convergence is finally here, but the landscape remains complex and confusing. In this session, Mario Queiroz will work to address the common myths and misperceptions around smart TVs and the promise the category holds for consumer electronics manufacturers, content owners, and consumers. Like the smart phone before it, the smart TV will bring a new layer of functionality to your existing home entertainment experiences. Mario will explore the value the web will bring to your living room experience. This platform will be targeted, personal, and discoverable with a touch of the button, and it will be integrated across multiple screens, from mobile phones to tablets to TVs. The developer transformed the world of smart phones and is doing the same for tablets. Mario will also address why smart TV is the next frontier for application development and why the prospects for killer apps that will fundamentally change the way we view and engage with television look promising.

Title: Second Screen and Social TV: Which way from here?

Speakers: Carlton Cuse (Carlton Cuse Productions), Brad Pelo (i.TV), Lisa Hsia (Bravo Digital Media), Alex Iskold (GetGlue)

For years we’ve debated the promise of interactive TV. Until now, the promise has not been realized but with the advent of real-time social services like Twitter and TV-specific social apps, we seem to be on the cusp of a sea change when it comes to how people watch and engage with television. This session will discuss the state of the second screen, why it’s important and what it will take to finally make interactive TV a reality.

Title: Can a Social Web of Things keep TV cords connected

Speaker: Alison Moore, HBO

It’s 2015 and over half of the devices in your home are connected to the Internet. On the drive home you consider taking a longer route, but when you ask for directions the GPS system reminds you that you need to get home soon – you have a viewing party. The television recognizes you when you walk in the door and suggests that you pour a glass of wine since everyone else is online and waiting for you to join the Game of Thrones premier party. In response, the wine cooler switches on, illuminating the last bottle of red – a 2007 Scarecrow. You cringe but open it anyway. Your HBO app automatically loads a summary of last season’s characters since you still seem to have them confused, and then asks if you’d like to join the group video chat. “Go ahead”, you say, “I will catch up as we go.” Join Rhonda and Allison as they think aloud about the future of media immersed in a world where everything is connected, and television becomes something that you live instead of just watch.

Title: Power Shift: Gadgets Rock Entertainment Ecosystem

Speaker: Richard Bullwinkle (Rovi Corporation)

We love our gadgets — all three, four, or even five of them. Daily, we constantly use our iPad, smart phone, laptop, iTouch, and devices that interact with our TV. Research confirms that we love to multi-task with our media — while watching TV, we surf the web, text and instant message. Generation Y may not have grown up with electronic gadgets but they face it full on as corporate America is grappling with how to use the iPad as a business tool while for many Generation Z ankle-biters, the iPad is their Fisher-Price busy-box. Today, technologists and content owners struggle to make content flow freely from one device to another, but we all know that day will come. This session will take a look at our fascination with being connected anytime, anywhere as it weaves itself into the very fabric of society, forever changing how we live, work and play. It will address how touch screen, connected, and high-resolution technologies are shaping consumer and social behavior, and defining what consumers expect their gadgets to do for them tomorrow.

Title: #futureoftv: Breaking through the noise

Speaker: Maureen Costello (Little Cannonballs)

New TV technologies are being launched at a breakneck pace, yet, right now it is all noise until some standards are set. Our industry is poised for a future of innovation, but the landscape still looks like a jumble of wires. Who are the current players breaking through the noise? What intellectual capital have we netted from the world’s investment in the Internet and its standards? What have we learned from the mistakes of the music industry? How can industry players—new and old—work together to define standards for success? Can we predict who will be left standing in the greatest reality competition ever—for TV’s digital future? Let’s break through the noise and get with the program folks!

Title: Enriching TV experience with companion apps

Speaker: Perry Cooper, NHL

As TV audiences age, marketers are challenged to appeal to their prime demographic of 18-to-49-year-olds. The younger demographic is definitely watching TV, but they now require a second screen to enhance their viewing and steer away from the traditional TV experience. The second screen of choice, being the mobile device, is now accessed by 86% of mobile Internet users simultaneously while watching TV to browse the web, social network, and text, according to a recent Yahoo! study. To appeal to this younger, more tech-savvy demographic, the NHL will be offering an in-game experience for the mobile users that will stimulate behavior and keep fans engaged throughout the entirety of every game. What will be referred to as “predictive gaming” will combine the attraction of fantasy sports to live games where users can compete with friends to predict what their favorite player or team will do next in real-time, adding a new layer of excitement to the game. The proposed presentation will examine how the second screen will become the virtual requirement for future TV programming.

Title: Convergent iTV Apps: Factors for Great Products

Speaker: Wes Williams, Scripps Networks

Many factors distinguish great apps from coulda-been-a-contender apps. We’ll do a deep dive into questions you should ask when producing convergent apps for connected TVs, smartphones and tablets. The framework will be an unbiased review of apps in the real world, balancing user-oriented thinking with business needs. This will reveal factors to consider when building interactive apps related to TV viewing. Learn how to determine which features you need to reach marketing, advertising and audience goals, whether on just the TV screen or multiple platforms.

Title: Tablets & TV – Building Second Screens Experiences

Speaker: Klemens Wengert, Turner Broadcasting

Creating phone and tablet companion applications for television shows presents a unique opportunity for content providers. By linking the two screens together we have a new way to engage and deliver content to the users, integrate advertising and enhance the experience of watching television. This presentation is going to focus on how to create a second screen experience that makes sense for your audience, for your brand and your advertisers through case studies from Turner Broadcasting as well as some best practises and lessons learned.

Title: 3 Screen Minimum: Convergence of TV & Social Media

Speakers: Fred Harner (SportsNet New York (SNY)), Stephanie Agresta (Weber Shandwick.com), Eric Bruno (Verizon), Soraya Darabi (Foodspotting)

A full 70 percent of US tablet owners say they use their devices while watching TV. Companies like Verizon are baking social into their products and enabling users to tweet, watch online videos and update Facebook directly from their TVs. Channels like Bravo capitalize on this by weaving emerging tech like Foursquare, Foodspotting and Shazam into their TV output, as well as having personalities engage actively with fans and critics on Twitter and other social media. Google Hangouts allows people to watch web video together online. Join as forward thinkers from Verizon, Foodspotting, SportsNet NY (SNY) discuss what’s next for the convergence of social media and TV.

Speculating On Motorola + Google TV

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Jeremy Toeman

Googorola!

Google is planning to acquire Motorola Mobility, which is a deal about patents and Android, but also one to raise questions on quite a few existing product lines. What will happen with Moto Droids and the Google Nexus line? Where do Android tablets go from here? Is MOTOBlur dead? (my answers: bye bye Nexus, tbd, and yes). The other interesting area is Google TV, particularly interesting because the Motorola Mobility dept is the one that makes the set-top boxes (which are, next to refrigerators, one of the least likely products to be mobile in my house, but maybe that’s just me).

I’ve seen tons of speculation this week about what the deal means, as it pertains to Google TV, and have batched together some of the perspectives that are floating around. Most common theme: now that Google owns the STB business, they can just sprinkle Android into all the next-gen cable boxes…

That gives Google an attractive footprint to leverage on a number of different fronts within the digital home, perhaps with a Trojan Horse strategy of pushing Android-based middleware out to shore up its lacklustre connected TV strategy.

Source: With Motorola, Google gains a big TV strategy | News | Rapid TV News http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2011081514335/with-motorola-google-gains-a-big-tv-strategy.html#ixzz1VEtbiUZe

Also surmised by Apple Insider, Robert Scoble, CNET, Business Insider, NewTeeVee, and Lost Remote (and others). Here’s the thing, this isn’t even a topic/issue/option in play, at all. It’s not exactly like Motorola’s been unable to acquire operating systems to power their set tops, and could easily have chosen Google TV prior to now. Further, there’s simply no such thing as “sneaking” technology into the cable infrastructure, not even a tiny bit. We’ve seen (and I’ve worked for) many companies try to accomplish some set of these tasks, and not one shred of success. Why? Because the cable industry commissions the hardware and features they want, and not the other way around.

You Can Have it Your Way. aka 7' tall and creepy.

Another widely spread philosophy is that the only reason Google TV hasn’t caught on yet is due to not having had the right chance/opportunity:

“Google TV has not caught on yet,” wrote AOL journalist Saul Hansell on his personal blog. “This could be the wedge to get it in millions of living rooms.”

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20092451-261/motorola-could-help-cure-ailing-google-tv/#ixzz1VExC7Dqg

Shared feelings from Zatz Not Funny, Lost Remote, NewTeeVee, and more, but not by myself (nor my friend Dan Frommer, though he’s much nicer about it than I would’ve been). Google TV hasn’t caught on with consumers because it’s the wrong value proposition for consumers, period. In my ten-plus years of building “connected TV” products, the thing I’ve learned is that the more interaction you throw on the screen, the less you engage and benefit your users. While there are moments for “lean-forward” activities, they are fleeting. Google TV is built on the opposite premise.

This isn't exactly the lean-back experience I was expecting.

One last comment that I’ve seen making the rounds was that Google just gained a bunch of knowhow regarding building boxes. This doesn’t much pass the sniff test either, as other than Apple, everybody builds boxes the same, and there’s very little secret sauce here. If anything, they should consider offloading all hardware production that still gets done internally or dive in deep in fully integrated software/hardware solutions. More on that in a bit.

So that’s enough about everybody else’s theories, time for a few of my own.

The acquisition was entirely about the patent portfolio, the synergy (or not) between Google TV (G-TV) and Motorola’s STB division (M-STB) is positive, but was coincidental.
Google must demonstrate to current M-STB customers that they will not disband nor change the status quo there in the short term (let’s call it 2-5 years). If this doesn’t happen quickly, we could see an exodus to the numerous viable competitors.
Google would be better off moving G-TV inside M-STB than vice versa. M-STB has the requisite business practices savvy for dealing with the cable industry, which is significantly more vital to longevity than any software platform. In fact, gaining this type of business experience is quite a boon for Google, as its an industry they have historically (dating back pre-YouTube days) not well-understood.
The other massive obstacle that seems underreported is the complete lack of fit between M-STB hardware platforms and G-TV software architecture needs. One of them will need a rewrite, and that’s costly.
Without a major improvement to the platform itself, this acquisition does not change G-TV’s fate. No cable company on the planet is simply going to allow technology into their boxes (yes, they buy em, they rent em to customers) without a) control and b) a clear path to revenue/profits. Granted, there are indications those profits could come, but not with the current platform.

Ultimately, I think this is a fascinating topic. The nuance of industries involved, the hugeness of capital in play, and the clearly disruptive horizon for the TV business is more exciting than virtually anything I can think of.

Well, almost anything.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: